So you're telling me that you wouldn't be pissed if on set point against you, your opponent clips the tape on a second set and it trickles over for an ace? During a point it happens all the time, but since its part of the game and has been a rule forever, we are use to it. Trust me, I have not talked to one player on tour since this rule was being discussed that is in favor of it. It was put in college as the "John Isner" rule, for cheating, but since D1 matches have chairs now, its not that big of a deal.

"John Isner" rule? Weren't lets eliminated from men's D1 four or five years before Isner showed up at Georgia? I thought it started in the late 90's. Anyway, the fact that most of the bigger matches have a chair umpire on each court means very little, as many of the umps are clueless. Men's D1 definitely made the right choice eliminating lets.

As for the pros, I'm typically a traditionalist and don't like to see rule changes. However, I can see some of the arguments is support of a change.

The difference is that there are more lets on serve's points than during an exchange because the players have all the time they want to play with precision and with little margin between the ball and the net. So the proportion of net is higher. Moreover, a net on serve would be always a point for the server (otherwise the ball is out, and it's a second serve) whereas a net in an exchange can go to both direction (the hitter or the other player). So it's more unfair. (not to mention that this new "rule" is totally USELESS)

Always point for server? Hardly. Most of the lets I see are of the kind where the ball trajectory remains relatively unchanged. The amount of points where the serve would turn into a perfect drop shot is low indeed. With a high bounce on the net it might even set up the returner for a winner, provided he's quick on his feet.

It's a massively flawed idea because it removes a major aspect of the sport: that both players have an opportunity to win every point. People say there's no difference between winning the point by hitting the net and the ball dribbling over midway through a rally, and doing the same thing from your own serve. Well, there IS a difference...a massive one. The difference is that when it happens in a rally, both players have had the opportunity to hit the ball and win the point.

Do you all really think a tennis ball flying between 150 and 210 kmph can hit the net and dye just behind ?

If yes I hope you are not working as a calculator in military or industry !

Only a magician like Fabrice Santoro should be able to serve such a ball serve and he would deserve the point.

Big returner like Kolya or Nole can argue saying that affects the way of the ball but net can also makes the ball seed really slower and help returners on other points.

By the way in volley ball small serves is a tactic paying off (because at the top level with the latest rule of "libero" the worst receivers and better spikers are in the front line). Those dying serves are side effects of those small serves.
In tennis I never saw an actual small serve except maybe Chang Lendl in The French final.

__________________

N°1E THE GUY WHO ENDEDTHE FEDAL ERA

My name is the Djoker and I sign with a smile. Get me some water, I’ll be here a while.

Do you all really think a tennis ball flying between 150 and 210 kmph can hit the net and dye just behind ?

If yes I hope you are not working as a calculator in military or industry !

Only a magician like Fabrice Santoro should be able to serve such a ball serve and he would deserve the point.

Big returner like Kolya or Nole can argue saying that affects the way of the ball but net can also makes the ball seed really slower and help returners on other points.

By the way in volley ball small serves is a tactic paying off (because at the top level with the latest rule of "libero" the worst receivers and better spikers are in the front line). Those dying serves are side effects of those small serves.
In tennis I never saw an actual small serve except maybe Chang Lendl in The French final.

Obviously you didn't watch the Challenger of Dallas because it happened on at least 3 occasions on center court matches that I called.